- Attenborough.film
- Compare
- CC200 vs NeoPix 150
HP CC200 vs Philips NeoPix 150
What CC200 does better (0) and where NeoPix 150 wins (2) — every spec side by side.
2.3Picture2.2
Dimensions
Size comparison
CC200NeoPix 150
| CC200 | NeoPix 150 | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Height | 203 mm | 208 mm | −5 mm |
| Width | 128 mm | 126 mm | +2 mm |
| Depth | 136 mm | 144 mm | −8 mm |
Drawn to the same scale from the official dimensions (front and side).
Why is CC200 better than NeoPix 150?
CC200 has no measurable advantages in this pair.
Why is NeoPix 150 better than CC200?
- Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens)200 lm vs 250 lm+25%
- Audio outputNo · CC200: Yes
Specifications
Side by side
| Picture | ||
| Resolution (on screen) | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) |
| Native panel resolution | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) | 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) |
| Display technology | LCD (single panel) | LCD (single panel) |
| Light source | LED | — |
| Brightness (ANSI / ISO lumens) | 200 lm | 250 lm |
| Contrast ratio (dynamic / claimed) | — | 1,000:1 |
| Lens & placement | ||
| Throw ratio | 1.4:1 | 1.2:1 |
| Throw type | Standard throw (1.0:1 and longer) | Standard throw (1.0:1 and longer) |
| Distance for a 100″ 16:9 image | 3.1 m | 2.66 m |
| Smallest image size | 45″ | — |
| Largest image size | 80″ | — |
| Keystone correction | — | Yes |
| Automatic keystone correction | — | No |
| Sound | ||
| Built-in speakers (total output) | — | 6 W |
| Smart & streaming | ||
| Wi-Fi | — | Yes |
| Bluetooth | — | Yes |
| Connectivity | ||
| HDMI inputs | 1 | 1 |
| HDMI version | — | 1.4 |
| USB port | No | Yes |
| Ethernet (LAN) | No | No |
| VGA input | No | No |
| Audio output | No | Yes |
| Battery, power & lifetime | ||
| Light source life | 20,000 h | — |
| Design & noise | ||
| Weight | — | 1.85 kg |
| Width | 128 mm | 126 mm |
| Height | 203 mm | 208 mm |
| Depth | 136 mm | 144 mm |
| Colours | Yellow | — |
